Bona fide personal occupation under rent law must be judged on genuine need, not absolute necessity; eviction order restored.

A landlord's claim for personal occupation under rent restriction law is established when the need is genuine and honest, not an absolute necessity, and must be assessed on a broad practical basis. Relevant circumstances may include family composition, social customs, growing children, the presence of married daughters and their children, and the need for greater comfort. The authorities below were found to have taken an unduly legalistic approach and to have ignored these surrounding facts. The High Court held the requirement bona fide, allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order, and restored the eviction order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the landlords had established a bona fide requirement of the demised premises for their own personal occupation under the rent restriction statute.

Analysis: The requirement contemplated by the statute is not absolute necessity but a genuine and honest need, assessed on a broad practical view. The landlord is not to be judged as though the Controller or appellate authority were in the landlord's place. Social customs, family circumstances, growing children, occasional residence of married daughters and their children, and the need for greater comfort may properly enter the assessment of bona fides. The authorities below had adopted an unduly legalistic approach and had ignored relevant surrounding circumstances showing that the claim was neither collateral nor oblique.

Conclusion: The landlords' claim was bona fide and the order of eviction was restored.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was reinstated.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the rent restriction law, a landlord's claim for personal occupation is to be allowed when the need is genuine and honest, judged on a broad practical basis and not confined to absolute necessity.

---